What Rights (If Any) Should Be Awarded To Homosexual Couples #2?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, FEDERAL courts have ruled against you.

 

Top of the thread. "Rights....Awarded to Homosexual couples #2" because one such thread wasnt enough.

 

Great quote Dixion, it also provides for the reason why SSM is perfectly legal.

Doesn't mean that SSM will be over inclusive for gays or under inclusive for not allowing incestuous marriages.

 

ALL homosexual couples simply, biologically, won't be creating children.

 

Which is irrelevant because there's no basis for denying marriage based on the fact biological reproduction BETWEEN the couple is impossible.

 

notice the complete absence of the word ONLY. this is the gay and lesbian sub forum. you know this, but you need to seek refuge in equivocation, because you have no argument.

 

Actually, its the reason marriage limited to heterosexuals is constitutional and SSM continues to be illegal in 44 states. Revealing, your tortured logic that leads you to perceive precisely the opposite meaning.

 

so? doesn't effect my statement in the slightest.

 

As long as you choose someone of the opposite sex to have sexual relations with. Probably 100s of 100s of bisexual and homosexual men in heterosexual marriages. Prefering to focus upon their desire to form a family by fathering children, as opposed to focusing upon their preferred method of bringing about an orgasm. Regardles of their individual, chosen or assigned at birth sexuality, a man and a woman in a sexual relationship, make a "heterosexual" couple.

 

lol, nothing in the above post even addressed what I said, or the fact that what I said, directly refuted your point.

 

Oh, you mean the ones in denial who come out at 40 and leave their families in tatters? Yeah, every gay man and woman should do that!!

That you would condense homosexuality to a mere orgasm is telling, as is your previous example of "two 18 year old boys boning each other in the butt"...

But Rahl's point is so clear I don't know how you got to thinking it was another chance to spout this BS. He was talking about methods gay couples use to create life, like surrogacy and sperm donation. It is life that probably would not exist otherwise, if not for the same-sex couple being together and making that decision. So, same-sex can and do increase the population, as well as raising kids opposite sex couples have abandoned. The state has every interest in supporting that endeavour.

 

Wrong.

SSM is not illegal. Try again. Prohibition and criminality are two completely different things.

As has been stated several times. Learn the difference and then try again.

 

Thats a gay couple AND a third party procreating. Not the "gay couples" procreating. Using your silly fool logic, my dog and I could procreate and as well, ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS could procreate. There isnt even any need for them to be a sexual couple. And yet here you are insisting on special rights for those couples who happen to be "gay couples"

 

I didnt claim is was criminal. I said it was illegal.
On to the next strawman you can find.

 

Illegality insinuates criminality. Gay marriages are simply not being performed. If one performed a SSM one would not serve time or be penalize, the marriage simply wouldn't be recognized.

Gay marriage isn't illegal, it simply isn't recognized as valid and binding by most states.

 

retarded argument. dogs can't consent.

and lets not forget your favorite strawman. NOBODY is asking for special rights for homosexuals. NOBODY. we're asking for EQUAL rights. and not one person has said for homosexuals ONLY.

 

Just like closely related marriages in some states where closely related marriages are not a crime. As well, using your logic, simply making same sex marriages a criminal offense would eliminate any constitutional argument you had.

 

My dogs consent isnt necessary for me to procreate with a surrogate.

 

retarded argument. you can't marry your dog. your dog can't consent.

 

Maybe to your backwards view of reality that would seem like a logical path. However SSM is not illegal.

That doesn't change anything. The state does not recognize your dog as a competent being able of giving informed consent.

 

No one claimed I could. Its your strawman, of course its a retarded argument. Thats why you selected it. Easier to knock down.

 

you're a joke.

standard dixon argument:

make idiotic claim.
idiotic claim gets refuted.
whine and cry strawman.


it really is tiresome.

 

???? You havent yet refuted my claim.

 

Procreation is not a requirement of marriage....therefore your claim means nothing....